Group Tasks Task Types MURI QUANTA Project Kayla

Group Tasks & Task Types MURI QUANTA Project Kayla de la Haye Jen Labrecque September 16 2015

Groups & Group Tasks • Groups: ▫ a collection of individuals who are mutually aware of one another , their interdependence, and shared purpose/objective/goal • Group tasks: ▫ a task performed by a group (very broad) ▫ includes: instructions for acting on a ‘stimulus complex’ (physical/social/conceptual inputs) and goal directives (and potentially procedural directives) • Research Goal: ▫ understand the factors and processes that impact group performance on group tasks Larson, 2010

Models of Group Performance • The ‘population’ of groups and group tasks is large and varied • To meet our research goal, we want to develop models of group performance on group tasks that are: ▫ generalizable – they identify common factors that explain performance for many groups on many tasks ▫ have good predictive validity across contexts and task types ▫ identify important factors and processes Larson, 2010

Components of Group Performance • Performance effectiveness: how well groups perform on specific tasks ▫ Combined abilities and skills of group members ▫ Group interaction/behavior: the collaborative activities of the group done to accomplish the task • Performance integrity: the ability of the group to perform over time ▫ The effectiveness of the group over time: if this is maintained, increases, or declines Larson, 2010

Components of Group Tasks • Q: Why think about task components and task types? ▫ Different tasks place different demands on a group �This can have important effects on group processes and group performance �Task type can explain substantial variability in group performance (maybe 50%, Larson, 2010) • Ideally, our models of group performance can ▫ predict performance consistencies (e. g. , ‘collective intelligence’) ▫ and provide parsimonious and useful explanations of performance variability due to task types

Taxonomies of Group Tasks • Starting point: a comprehensive population of group tasks • Goal of group task taxonomies is to identify: ▫ underlying properties/dimensions of tasks and their relationships to one another ▫ meaningful similarities and differences across tasks ▫ important task dimensions that significantly impact group processes / effectiveness, and so explain performance variability • Value of taxonomies: ▫ informing generalizability: results apply to similar types of tasks ▫ theory building: identify factors that explain performance on related tasks and the underlying mechanisms Larson, 2010

Task Domains: Key Concepts • Idea-generation tasks: ▫ tasks that require novel and creative ideas • Problem-solving tasks: ▫ tasks with an objectively correct answer • Judgment tasks: ▫ tasks with a very difficult (if not impossible to determine) objectively correct answer • Decision-making tasks: ▫ tasks where the best answer may be difficult to determine, and which typically call for a choice (identifying the best choice) among a set of discrete alternatives Larson, 2010

Shaw’s Multi-dimensional Analysis of Task Structure • Early, quantitative approach to taxonomies • Factor analysis of attributes for over 104 varied group tasks • Identified 6 underlying task dimensions 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Task difficulty Solution multiplicity Cooperation requirements Intellectual-manipulative requirements Population familiarity Intrinsic interest Shaw, 1963

Laughlin’s Intellective-Judgmental Continuum Intellective Correct Solutions Judgmental No objectively correct solution • Focus on differences in problem-solving tasks based on one key dimension • Intellective tasks: ▫ with demonstrable solutions: the answer is obvious once proposed �just one person needs to find the solution for group to adopt it ▫ without demonstrable solutions: the correct answer is not easily identifiable to nonsolvers �requires more group members/complex group processes for the group to adopt it • Judgmental tasks: ▫ not demonstrable: group must establish what they believe is correct �dependent on group processes (e. g. , majority decisions, leaders) Laughlin, 1980/1986

Mc. Grath’s Group Task Circumplex Model

Mc. Grath’s Group Task Circumplex Model Basic organization: • 8 task types, mutually exclusive & exhaustive • Task types are related according to underlying 2 dimensional structure: ▫ Horizontal axis: Mental / conceptual vs physical / behavioral ▫ Vertical axis: Conflict vs cooperation within group • 4 quadrants specifying the required performance processes, each w/ 2 task types Mc. Grath, 1984

Mc. Grath’s Group Task Circumplex Model Quadrant I. Generate • Something is created or produced cooperation Task types differentiated by action-orientation I. Planning tasks – generate action-oriented plans / how to achieve the goal Ex/ Specify the sequence of steps that must be followed to successfully organize and run a charity dance marathon II. Creativity tasks – generate ideas that don’t have a strong action orientation Ex/ Brainstorming ideas for how to spend $10, 000

Mc. Grath’s Group Task Circumplex Model Quadrant II. Choose • Select a choice (from alternatives) conceptual Task types differentiated by whethere is an objectively correct answer: III. Intellective tasks – have an objectively correct answer Ex/ exam question IV. Decision-making tasks – no objectively correct answer, group decides what they think is correct Ex/ jury decisions

Mc. Grath’s Group Task Circumplex Model conflict Quadrant III. Negotiate • Group has to resolve conflict stemming from within Task types differentiated by source of conflict: V. Cognitive conflict tasks – must resolve differences in viewpoint Ex/ Team members interpret data differently, so can’t agree on what recommendation to give to policy makers VI. Mixed motive tasks – must resolve conflicts of interest Ex/ Social dilemma games in which one’s self-interest is at odds with the group’s interest

Mc. Grath’s Group Task Circumplex Model Quadrant IV. Execute • Usually requires physical action behavioral Tasks differentiated by competition against an adversary (or not) VII. Contests / battles / competitive tasks – performed against an opponent (win/lose) Ex/ basketball game, military battle VIII. Performances / psycho-motor tasks – striving to meet a standard of excellence Ex/ construction crew completes building project on time, to code, and within budget

Mc. Grath’s Group Task Circumplex Model Strengths Model Weaknesses Comprehensive, conceptual typology Possible overlapping task types / ambiguous classification (esp task types 4, 5, & 6) Appealingly simple structure / symmetry Clusters task together that have been shown to have different characteristics important to group outcomes (e. g. , All tasks w/ an objectively correct answer are categorized as Type 3, though they vary in demonstrability)

Steiner’s Group Task Typology (1) Divisible vs. Unitary Tasks • Divisible tasks can be separated into distinct parts that require different skills/abilities ▫ Subtask-person assignment is critical ▫ Subtasks may be completed fairly independently by group members, requiring minimal group processes ▫ Although there may some subtask interdependence (e. g. , sequential) • Unitary tasks cannot be meaningfully separated into distinct activities ▫ Process requires all members engage in the same activity, applying the same skills/abilities ▫ Likely to require more complex group behaviors and processes Steiner, 1966/1972

Steiner’s Group Task Typology (2) Maximizing vs. Optimizing Tasks • Differences in the nature of the task goals • Maximizing tasks: where the goal is to perform as much or as quickly as possible �E. g. , come up with as many items/solutions as possible ▫ Can be unitary or divisible • Optimizing tasks: where the goal is the production of a specific, desirable product �E. g. , come up with one, best solution ▫ Can be unitary or divisible Steiner, 1966/1972

Steiner’s Group Task Typology (3) Permitted Group Processes • Differences in the combinatorial processes permitted in unitary tasks: the ways that members efforts are combined to solve the task ▫ Additive tasks: group product is the sum of all members’ efforts, where contributions are weighted equally �E. g. : total # of ideas generated by the group ▫ Conjunctive tasks: require all group members to contribute identically, member contributions are constrained to be equal �E. g. , weakest link determines group performance ▫ Disjunctive tasks: permit just one member’s contributions to determine the group product, where an individual product is sanctioned by the group �E. g. , many problem solving tasks ▫ Discretionary tasks: no restraints on how member contributions are combined, up to the group �E. g. , optimizing tasks, like forecasting a future event

Steiner’s Group Task Typology Value of the model… • Useful for identifying group processes that contribute to group task performance, and why performance may differ across task types ▫ Different potential for group abilities, effectiveness, interactions/ behaviors to impact task outcome �Tasks may constrain the contribution of group members �Tasks provide different opportunities for group processes and emergent gains/losses in performance • Insight into individual vs. group performance ▫ why groups perform at the level of their average member vs. best member vs. better than their best member Steiner, 1966/1972

Summary of Task Typologies and Domains • Various approaches for identifying important task domains ▫ Mainly conceptual ▫ Few data-driven approaches • Overall reflect different opportunities/ constraints for group member abilities and group interaction/behavior to impact group performance

Collective Intelligence • Using tasks from all quadrants of the Mc. Grath Task Circumplex, Woolley et al. (2010) found evidence for a general collective intelligence factor c: 1) positive correlation among scores on different tasks (r =. 28) 2) initial factor accounting for > 43% of the variance 3) c more strongly related to performance on complex (criterion) tasks than group performance on simpler/pure tasks • Understanding underlying latent variable that explains consistency on performance across task types ▫ Rather than factors that explain differences on task dimensions/domains Woolley, 2010; Malone

Collective Performance Differences • Ideally, our models of group performance can ▫ predict performance consistencies (e. g. , ‘collective intelligence’) ▫ and provide parsimonious and useful explanations of performance variability due to task types � 50% of variance may be explained by task types (Larson, 2010) • Task typologies: useful framework for developing models that identify group factors and processes that explain predictable performance variability

Overall Summary • The extent to which different factors - group member characteristics, group characteristics, emergent group processes/behaviors –contribute to and impact performance is, to some extent, dependent on the requirements of the task ▫ And so we need to understand key similarities and differences in task types: task typologies are a useful framework • Assessing group performance ▫ On isolated “pure” task domains �valuable for understanding factors that impact specific task domains �but maybe not generalizable ▫ Using batteries of varied tasks (or complex multi-domain tasks) �valuable for understanding factors that predict performance stability and variability, and identifying underlying processes �maybe loose some specificity �computing ‘c’ , a latent ‘collective intelligence’ factor, may have incremental predictive validity (worth exploring further…)